GS
Its hardly meaningless drivel, and it hardly fills the programme given they are 3-5 minute chats. Mitchell & Webb were on the other morning. Really funny way to start the day, and reminded me to set my set-top box to record the new series.
We get regular headlines, business, travel, local, talking points - but also a little snippet of entertainment and a guest on the sofa. So what's the problem with that?
And I'm not being critical for the sake of it, but do you really have to use all that formatting in your posts? Italicising programme names really isn't necessary in my small opinion.
Just a thought.
Gavin Scott
Founding member
Firstly, I don't watch
Breakfast
for their A-list celebrities. It's currently only shown after 8:30, but that sort of meaningless drivel should be left to GMTV/Daybreak anyway.
Its hardly meaningless drivel, and it hardly fills the programme given they are 3-5 minute chats. Mitchell & Webb were on the other morning. Really funny way to start the day, and reminded me to set my set-top box to record the new series.
We get regular headlines, business, travel, local, talking points - but also a little snippet of entertainment and a guest on the sofa. So what's the problem with that?
And I'm not being critical for the sake of it, but do you really have to use all that formatting in your posts? Italicising programme names really isn't necessary in my small opinion.
Just a thought.
ST
I don't have to, no.
If people are promoting their latest book/programme/film etc, then they will go to wherever they can get the publicity, at their own cost.
If the programme was being broadcast from the Outer Hebrides, I'm sure they would find a way to get there at 8:30am.
And I'm not being critical for the sake of it, but do you really have to use all that formatting in your posts? Italicising programme names really isn't necessary in my small opinion.
I don't have to, no.
A rather stupid and costly move. Presumably if it were at Broadcasting house it would continue to share studios with other BBC News output, rather than having it's own up in Manchester - and as for the issue of costs, any guests who are willing to travel up to Manchester from London to appear won't be doing so at their own expense. We'd end up footing their travel and hotel bills (they'd almost certainly travel up the night before I'd imagine).
If people are promoting their latest book/programme/film etc, then they will go to wherever they can get the publicity, at their own cost.
If the programme was being broadcast from the Outer Hebrides, I'm sure they would find a way to get there at 8:30am.
GS
I don't have to, no.
If people are promoting their latest book/programme/film etc, then they will go to wherever they can get the publicity, at their own cost.
If the programme was being broadcast from the Outer Hebrides, I'm sure they would find a way to get there at 8:30am.
But why would they, if they could potentially reach the entire nation for 5 minutes by heading along to the daybreak studio?
Its not as straightforward as - "you're the one with something to sell, so you pay for the travel".
One hand washes the other. Both interviewee and interviewer gain from the appearance, so while no money changes hands for the appearance, the broadcaster will almost certainly foot the bill for transport, accommodation and other sundry expenses.
That's not going to change any time soon.
Gavin Scott
Founding member
And I'm not being critical for the sake of it, but do you really have to use all that formatting in your posts? Italicising programme names really isn't necessary in my small opinion.
I don't have to, no.
A rather stupid and costly move. Presumably if it were at Broadcasting house it would continue to share studios with other BBC News output, rather than having it's own up in Manchester - and as for the issue of costs, any guests who are willing to travel up to Manchester from London to appear won't be doing so at their own expense. We'd end up footing their travel and hotel bills (they'd almost certainly travel up the night before I'd imagine).
If people are promoting their latest book/programme/film etc, then they will go to wherever they can get the publicity, at their own cost.
If the programme was being broadcast from the Outer Hebrides, I'm sure they would find a way to get there at 8:30am.
But why would they, if they could potentially reach the entire nation for 5 minutes by heading along to the daybreak studio?
Its not as straightforward as - "you're the one with something to sell, so you pay for the travel".
One hand washes the other. Both interviewee and interviewer gain from the appearance, so while no money changes hands for the appearance, the broadcaster will almost certainly foot the bill for transport, accommodation and other sundry expenses.
That's not going to change any time soon.
ST
You seem uncertain about whether broadcasters pay for travel/accommodation etc. The fact that these people usually appear on any programme willing to let them plug their merchandise, indicates that the appearance is their choice and generally part of their own marketing strategy. That doesn't signal any additional cost to the broadcaster simply by being in a different location.
Celebrities already travel around the country promoting their wares. If they want to appear on BBC Breakfast in future, then they'll have to make the far from arduous trip to Salford. I'm sure MediaCity is no more difficult to get to than White City.
When I lived in London, it always took me far longer to get across the city (from Ruislip to Euston) than it did to get from Euston to Manchester by train. These days a flight would be even faster.
But why would they, if they could potentially reach the entire nation for 5 minutes by heading along to the daybreak studio?
Its not as straightforward as - "you're the one with something to sell, so you pay for the travel".
One hand washes the other. Both interviewee and interviewer gain from the appearance, so while no money changes hands for the appearance, the broadcaster will almost certainly foot the bill for transport, accommodation and other sundry expenses.
That's not going to change any time soon.
Its not as straightforward as - "you're the one with something to sell, so you pay for the travel".
One hand washes the other. Both interviewee and interviewer gain from the appearance, so while no money changes hands for the appearance, the broadcaster will almost certainly foot the bill for transport, accommodation and other sundry expenses.
That's not going to change any time soon.
You seem uncertain about whether broadcasters pay for travel/accommodation etc. The fact that these people usually appear on any programme willing to let them plug their merchandise, indicates that the appearance is their choice and generally part of their own marketing strategy. That doesn't signal any additional cost to the broadcaster simply by being in a different location.
Celebrities already travel around the country promoting their wares. If they want to appear on BBC Breakfast in future, then they'll have to make the far from arduous trip to Salford. I'm sure MediaCity is no more difficult to get to than White City.
When I lived in London, it always took me far longer to get across the city (from Ruislip to Euston) than it did to get from Euston to Manchester by train. These days a flight would be even faster.
GS
You seem uncertain about whether broadcasters pay for travel/accommodation etc. The fact that these people usually appear on any programme willing to let them plug their merchandise, indicates that the appearance is their choice and generally part of their own marketing strategy. That doesn't signal any additional cost to the broadcaster simply by being in a different location.
Let me clarify, and there will be others who can back this up.
The BBC always pays for transport (or provides its own), as well as accommodation, and necessary expenses. For the most part it would only be transport to get them to the studio.
Other broadcasters may also pay a fee.
Sorry, that should be fee (if unnecessary emphasis is the order of the day ).
Gavin Scott
Founding member
But why would they, if they could potentially reach the entire nation for 5 minutes by heading along to the daybreak studio?
Its not as straightforward as - "you're the one with something to sell, so you pay for the travel".
One hand washes the other. Both interviewee and interviewer gain from the appearance, so while no money changes hands for the appearance, the broadcaster will almost certainly foot the bill for transport, accommodation and other sundry expenses.
That's not going to change any time soon.
Its not as straightforward as - "you're the one with something to sell, so you pay for the travel".
One hand washes the other. Both interviewee and interviewer gain from the appearance, so while no money changes hands for the appearance, the broadcaster will almost certainly foot the bill for transport, accommodation and other sundry expenses.
That's not going to change any time soon.
You seem uncertain about whether broadcasters pay for travel/accommodation etc. The fact that these people usually appear on any programme willing to let them plug their merchandise, indicates that the appearance is their choice and generally part of their own marketing strategy. That doesn't signal any additional cost to the broadcaster simply by being in a different location.
Let me clarify, and there will be others who can back this up.
The BBC always pays for transport (or provides its own), as well as accommodation, and necessary expenses. For the most part it would only be transport to get them to the studio.
Other broadcasters may also pay a fee.
Sorry, that should be fee (if unnecessary emphasis is the order of the day ).
GS
Gavin Scott
Founding member
Sorry, to pick up on the second part of what you said - book signings in the provinces are a possibility, but are you genuinely expecting Andy Garcia (this morning's guest) to pop up to Manchester, Newcastle or Glasgow to push his film?
I wouldn't wait in line too long.
Mitchell & Webb (according to their respective twitter streams) were doing a "massive push" for the new series. Which I believe was done in the one day of TV interviews in London.
I wouldn't wait in line too long.
Mitchell & Webb (according to their respective twitter streams) were doing a "massive push" for the new series. Which I believe was done in the one day of TV interviews in London.
DV
Waste of money and effort really, which I understand has gone down badly, not unexpectedly, with the existing production team.
NW
I'm all for out of London productions on the BBC, but this idea just seems plain daft, it should stay in London, it's a BBC News programme, it should be coming from the new BBC News hub at Broadcasting House when it opens, they will struggle getting guests such as members of the cabinet, let alone celebrities, and for more important interviews down the line I don't think is as effective as face to face ones.
Good luck to the BBC, it could be a stroke of genius, but I rather doubt it, if anything it'll give Daybreak quite a good leg up.
Good luck to the BBC, it could be a stroke of genius, but I rather doubt it, if anything it'll give Daybreak quite a good leg up.